- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The present order is a post-script to the Constitution Bench decision in “Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P.”, (1990) 1 SCC 109, in which this Court held that States lack authority to levy vend fee on industrial alcohol, but made that declaration prospective, i.e., operative only from 25-10-1989 with no direction for refund of amounts already collected.
Following that judgment, conflicting two- and three-judge bench orders have arisen on the recoverability of vend fee for periods prior to 25-10-1989. The present matter involves appeals in which recovery had been stayed earlier; the appellants rely on a three-judge bench order in “Sachid Hussain v. State of U.P.” quashing a pre-1989 demand, while the State cites later two-judge bench orders permitting such recovery. Confronted with these inconsistent positions, the Court issues the instant order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, notwithstanding the prospective declaration in “Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P.”, the State can lawfully recover vend fee on industrial alcohol for periods prior to 25-10-1989.
- Whether the conflicting views expressed by different benches of the Supreme Court require reference to a larger bench for authoritative resolution.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- Relying on the three-judge bench order in Sachid Hussain v. State of U.P., they contend that although no refund is claimable, the State is presently barred from enforcing pre-1989 demands.
State’s Arguments
- Because recovery was earlier stayed, the State could not collect the fee; the prospective declaration in Synthetics & Chemicals leaves intact the validity of all levies prior to 25-10-1989.
- Two-judge bench decisions in H.M. Ishaque & Sons and in I.A. No. 1/1990 (SLP No. 10175/1991) have expressly upheld the State’s right to recover vend fee for the earlier period.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1990) 1 SCC 109; 1989 Supp 1 SCR 623 |
States lack power to levy vend fee on industrial alcohol; declaration made prospectively from 25-10-1989; no refunds. | Serves as the foundational judgment; current dispute concerns its effect on pre-1989 levies. |
| Sachid Hussain v. State of U.P. W.P. Nos. 7452/1981 & 3571/1982 (3-Judge Bench) |
Quashed a recovery order for vend fee relating to 1975-1978. | Relied upon by appellants to argue that pre-1989 recoveries are impermissible. |
| H.M. Ishaque & Sons v. State of U.P. Civil Appeal No. 485 of 1979 (2-Judge Bench) |
Clarified that vend fee became unconstitutional only from 25-10-1989; pre-1989 levy valid and recoverable. | Cited by State to justify continuation of recovery proceedings for earlier period. |
| Order in I.A. No. 1 of 1990 in SLP (C) No. 10175 of 1991 (2-Judge Bench) | Reiterated that recovery of vend fee for period prior to 25-10-1989 is unaffected by Synthetics & Chemicals. | Supports the State’s stance that earlier dues remain payable. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observes that, while Synthetics & Chemicals prospectively invalidated the levy on industrial alcohol after 25-10-1989, bench orders rendered thereafter are inconsistent regarding pre-1989 dues. A three-judge bench quashed such recovery, whereas two-judge benches have sustained it. Recognising that these contradictory pronouncements create legal uncertainty, the present bench refrains from deciding the substantive issue itself. Instead, it determines that an authoritative pronouncement by an appropriately constituted larger bench is necessary to ensure uniform application of the law.
Holding and Implications
ORDER OF REFERENCE: The matter is directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate larger bench to resolve the conflict regarding the State’s power to recover vend fee on industrial alcohol for the period prior to 25-10-1989.
Implications: Immediate recovery proceedings remain in abeyance until a larger bench settles the conflict, ensuring consistency in the treatment of pre-1989 vend fee liabilities. No new precedent on the merits is set by this referral order.
Order
1. This is a sequel to the judgment of this Court in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P (1990) 1 SCC 109, 1989 Supp 1 SCR 623 At SCR p. 682 it was observed:(, 159, para 88)
“On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions and practice, we are clearly of the opinion that in respect of industrial alcohol the States are not authorised to impose the impost they have purported to do. In that view of the matter, the contentions of the petitioners must succeed and such impositions and imposts must go as being invalid in law so far as industrial alcohol is concerned ….”
On this view it was further declared at pp. 682-683:
“We must, however, observe that these imposts and levies have been imposed by virtue of the decision of this Court in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. case (1990) 1 SCC 109, 1989 Supp 1 SCR 623. The States as well as the petitioners and manufacturers have adjusted their rights and their position on that basis except in the case of State of Tamil Nadu. In that view of the matter, it would be necessary to state that these provisions are declared to be illegal prospectively. In other words, the respondent States are restrained from enforcing the said levy any further but the respondents will not be liable for any refund and the tax already collected and paid will not be refunded. We prospectively declare these imposts to be illegal and invalid, but do not affect any realisations already made.”
2. Therefore, what Mr Anil B. Divan, learned Senior Counsel, contends is the order made by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 7452 of 1981 and 3571 of 1982, Sachid Hussain v. State of U.P must apply. According to him, the appellants would not be entitled to refund but at the same time they cannot be subject to liability at present.
3. In opposition to this, it is submitted that because of the stay granted by this Court, the State could not effect recovery. No doubt, on and from 25-10-1989 the appellants may not be liable; but in view of the prospective overruling in Synthetics & Chemicals (1990) 1 SCC 109, 1989 Supp 1 SCR 623 the levy prior to that period is not, in any manner, affected. As a matter of fact, this Court in several cases has permitted the levy of vend fee prior to 25-10-1989.
4. On a consideration of the above, we are of the view that there is a conflict in regard to the power of the State as to the levy of vend fee prior to 25-10-1989. The above extract by us will clearly indicate that on and from 25-10-1989, namely, the date of the judgment in Synthetics & Chemicals (1990) 1 SCC 109, 1989 Supp 1 SCR 623 the levy of vend fee on industrial alcohol will be clearly illegal but the question is what about the period prior to 25-10-1989? In Writ Petition Nos. 7452 of 1981 and 3571 of 1982 (Sachid Hussain v. State of U.P) this Court quashed the recovery order dated 14-9-1981 issued by the Excise Inspector for a sum of Rs 68,200 against the petitioners therein and the respondents (State of U.P and others) were directed to recover the said amount towards the vend fee for the period from 9-4-1975 to 14-4-1978. This order was passed by a Bench of three Judges.
5. However, there are orders passed by a Bench of two Judges in Civil Appeal No. 485 of 1979 and other connected matters (H.M Ishaque & Sons v. State of U.P Civil Appeal No. 485 of 1979) holding thus:
“We may clarify that the effect of the above judgment is that the levy of vend fees in respect of industrial alcohol will become unconstitutional only from the date of the judgment i.e 25-10-1989. The levy of any vend fee relating to a date prior to 25-10-1989 will be valid and would be recoverable if not already recovered and will not be refundable if already recovered. However, any collection of vend fee relatable to a period on or after 25-10-1989 will be unconstitutional as declared by this Court.”
To the same effect is the order made by this Court in Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 1990 in SLP (C) No. 10175 of 1991 dated 11-12-1991. Here again a Division Bench held:
“The contention that the steps for realisation of the vend fee for the period prior to 25-10-1989 the date on which the decision in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P (1990) 1 SCC 109, 1989 Supp 1 SCR 623 was rendered by this Court declaring the levy as unconstitutional cannot be proceeded with has to be rejected. The clear directions in the aforesaid judgment paragraph 89, is that the restrain from enforcing the levy is only prospective and the declaration does not affect any realisations already made.
Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that in this case an attachment had already been levied and the recovery steps had been stayed only on the application of the petitioner who was directed to furnish bank guarantee and it is not therefore a case of levy being enforced after the decision of this Court. We have been referred to the order in Civil Appeal Nos. 2191-2193 of 1989 that there is no scope for holding that the applicants have been absolved of the vend fee for the earlier period for which bank guarantee were offered.
We do not therefore, see any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.”
6. This conflict, in our considered view, will have to be decided by an appropriate Bench in order that there may be uniformity. Hence, we direct the papers be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Alert